Category Archives: Crime

Well, yada yada, you say. Another article arguing that if only we could have prostitutes plying their trade on the high street during school hours, all would be fine and dandy and they’d stop doing that annoying thing of getting murdered all the time. Yeah, the premise is wrong, but it’s a popular one we’ve heard a lot and we know we won’t learn anything new, right?

I was sneakily taking five minutes this morning to read through an article in Saturday’s Guardian about the Democratic Republic of the Congo, specifically about the use of rape as a weapon of conflict. As is invariably the case, I only got 1.5 minutes before Boogie sniffed me out. She asked me what I was reading. About a country in Africa, I replied. What about it, she asked? Well, how the fuck do you explain the situation in the Congo to a five year old? Without scaring her to death? I admit, it was totally beyond me. Boogie is still a child alive with the wonder of the world and totally unaware that meanness can extend beyond snatching a toy or refusing to allow (yet) another chocolate bar. Yesterday, we were at the cashpoint and she snatched the money when it came out and ran around waving it about and singing. I told her off, explaining that some people steal money when it’s waved in their faces (round our way they do anyway, maybe you live in a more genteel part of town – we, my friends, live in what is politely known as an urban neighbourhood). Her response? ‘But that’s silly. People don’t have to steal; why don’t they just take some out of the wall like we do?’ Aah, bless her privileged little socks.

Safe to say, then, that the situation in the Congo, won’t make a huge amount of sense to Boogie right now.

I said it was a country with a lot of problems where people were very mean to each other. Where people hurt each other even when the person hurt had clearly said no, I don’t like it, in a very loud voice. ‘No, I don’t like it’ being how we’ve taught Boogie to express her displeasure (initially anyway; further than that, all bets are off) when somebody’s doing something she doesn’t like/want.

Beyond that, I was stumped. Part of the reason being that, for all my own cynical, black view of humanity, I don’t want to burst Boogie’s bubble of wonder. Not yet. In truth, I don’t want to ever, but preparation is all in this world we live in.

What struck me about this particular piece, was that whilst this alleged level of domestic violence by women against men was definitely deemed to be the fault of feminists, it was never actually alleged that the women doing the hitting were feminists. Which seems a bit of an obvious missed opportunity for the MRAs present, so yah boo sucks. Where feminists were actually at fault it seemed was that we had caused DV against men not to be taken seriously and further, that we had convinced ‘the world’ that all men were violent, uncontrollable animals. Hmm.

Many men related their own experiences of being attacked by the women in their lives and complained that such attacks were treated as a joke, especially, it seemed, by the police. Even worse, many men related that their attacker was able, with little or no effort, to convince the police that she was in fact the victim. Both of these things were down to the pernicious influence of the Feminist Menace. So, if I have this right, police forces across the country are actively working to a feminist agenda, which is news to me (and, I confess, a somewhat heartening piece of information). Not only do they dismiss male DV victims, they then actively promote the women to ‘victim’ status (wow, thanks guys!) and this utter slavery to the gender norms we’re fed every day – and against which feminists the world over are fighting – is the fault of feminists?

Ooh, I’m missing something, let me just look down the back of the sofa…ah, yes! I’M MISSING THE IRONY! These are the very same men who immediately argue that women, say, just don’t have the mental capacity to excel at physics because their brains are too busy empathising and planning their weddings and that’s just biology and you can’t fuck with biology, oh no. Feminists argue against the idea of gender essentialism but it’s their fault that when you get hit by an ‘iddy biddy woman’ society calls you a poof who should just quit whining and act like a real man. Jeez, we really are to blame for everything. Part of me feels quite proud.

To delve deeper into ironic territory (I almost can’t bear to look!), we’ve not only got the police firmly in our pockets, we’ve got everybody convinced that men are complete animals. Er, no. I can only imagine that the thousands of feminists these men must interact with on a daily basis just aren’t of a radical enough ilk. Probably more of the type to think equality means the freedom to be equally as yuk as men. Because radical feminists are in fact the only group in the known world who don’t think that men are – inescapably – all animals, beholden to their biology, such biology apparently having been subject to no change whatsoever since they were out chasing woolly mammoths. Radical feminists, my dear men friends, are the only people who will ascribe to you higher cognitive functions which allow you to make choices – real, informed choices – about how you behave and how big an arsehole you are. Or not. Rad fems are the only people giving you the personal agency of an adult. It’s all those ‘biology is destiny’ people your public relations people need to have a word with I’m afraid; I don’t know the collective noun for them but I suggest you start with anybody who writes a book called ‘Why Men Wouldn’t Know an Emotion if It Bit Them On the Backside And Why Women Do the Biting For Fun’ or anything similar.

And know this: it is only post the feminist revolution when people are finally accepted as individuals rather than a gender on two legs that you will be able to go into a police station and not only be believed in your tale of DV, but be protected and cared for as well as any DV victim should.

Hopefully, today’s letter of complaint was less loony-like than yesterday’s. It had to be really given it was made to The Independent. Newspapers are sticklers for proper language, grammar and cold, hard facts, aren’t they?

OK, so they didn’t actually go with that title, but they may as well have done. They actually went with the title ‘Is Our Rape Conviction Rate Really So Poor?’

Now the whole article, short though it may be, is offensive, idiotic and boring in equal measures but I’m not tempted to go through it line by line because, well, because it’s all too familiar for words: Man Uses ‘Science’ to Legitimise Hating Women’. Yawn.

Suffice to say, a large part of it is about just exactly how many women, feeling bored on a Sunday afternoon, or irritated at work, or just generally pissed off with the Patriarchy, decide to falsely accuse a man of rape. You know, like, ho hum, should I go to the police, be disbelieved and ridiculed, then fight the CPS to get them to take my case to court, then sit through a detailed, personalised attack by defence counsel, then see my attacker walk free because I once kissed a man while wearing a short skirt, or should I do my nails?

Fortunately for us all, the author is a ‘man of science’ whose organisation, ‘Straight Statistics’ apparently seeks ‘to improve the understanding and use of statistics’. I know, I know – now all you feminists are scared, right? Because this man will show, using statistical evidence, that women really are liars and you will have to don a pinny and start the washing up.

However.

Despite the author’s own view that it is ‘almost impossible‘ to calculate the number of false rape claims, he then confidently goes on to assert that it is ‘far more than the 2% cited in the CPS’s Rape Manual.‘ He then repeats this allegation (‘The real level of false accusations is higher.‘) before stating that ‘Nobody knows [the real level of false accusations]’.

My question becomes obvious (and should be obvious to anybody with two dendrites to rub together): if it is indeed ‘impossible‘ to know the figure, then how exactly does he know it is much higher that that asserted by the CPS or any of the other similar studies which put the incidence of false rape claims at the same levels as other crimes? Are we to assume that he has extensive personal knowledge of false rape claims (which he has then unwisely extended to make assumptions about all rape claims)? Or are we to assume that well, women are just all liars, aren’t they? No prizes for guessing which assumption springs to mind more readily, eh?

But surely, I’ve quoted selectively, you think! As part of my evil feminist plan to smash The Patriarchy, I’ve missed out the statistical evidence this man must surely provide, no? He’ll surely have provided some if only to ‘improve my understanding of statistics‘, n’est-ce pas?

For shame, but the man gives me no opportunity for self-improvement. There seems little danger in misunderstanding his statistical evidence for the incidence of false rape claims given that he provides no evidence, statistical or otherwise, for his assertions. It seems that there’s just a Truth Fairy sitting in his head. Unfortunately for us all, she’s not called Cassandra.

God, I heard about this when it was proposed and I did nothing, thought no more about it because I thought it was just sabre-rattling shit; it couldn’t possibly come to pass, could it? Such naked, outright, institutionalised hatred of women. Nooo.

Sometimes I wonder about my level of stupidity.

And then something like this comes along and I know I’m as thick as constipated dog doo.